On Tue 06 Mar 2007 at 03:28PM, Alan DuBoff wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 March 2007 07:22 am, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > And that's what I'm talking about. I'm not concerned about the
> > installer. But I do want to be able to formulate a recipe for a tiny
> > distro. That's a lot harder when "critical" pieces are implemented in
> > languages like perl.
>
> When I first read you post, Garrett, it made we wonder some we could reduce
> some of the system by using a similar technique that BusyBox uses, where you
> would replace system utilities with leaner/meaner counterparts, such as tar,
> ls, etc..., symlinking the commands to the original binary. That will make
> sense for anyone that knows what BusyBox does.
>
> But at 38mb, it will not be a concern for most system, it's not as if we're
> having to ship Solaris/OpenSolaris on NAND.
>
> Even with the amount of contention I've had in discussions with Bruce Parens,
> I have to give him points for BusyBox, really helps out embedded development,
> and I've always marveled at such a powerful solution with such a simple
> implementation.
I looked a busybox a while back, and think that providing a port to
Solaris would be be a fine project for anyone looking to brush up
their UNIX hacking skills.
-dp
--
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - blogs.sun.com/dp
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
